Whether parents of victim daughter are her legal heirs if she was married?

 Reading the provision as it is, any legal heir is

entitled to claim compensation awardable under the Act. Prima

facie, it cannot be said that the parents of the victim daughter,

though she was married, were not her legal heirs, particularly

when her husband was no more living. The question needs full

consideration on the basis of evidence led by the parties in the

claim application. The Motor Vehicle Act is a special statute

with social welfare objectives. The jurisdiction of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal having regard to the terminologies

used in the Act must be held to be wider than the civil court. A

claimant has a wide option. Residence of the claimant also

determines jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE

FIRST APPEAL NO. 132 OF 2013

 MANOHAR MARUTI GHULE  Vs DANG SANJEEV 

CORAM:-A. P. BHANGALE, J.

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED

ON: : __/10/2013.

Citation;2014(3) ALLMR 233

The appeal is against the judgment and order dated

06-03-20 03 passed by learned member, Motor accident claim

Tribunal at Mumbai in Claim application no367 of 2003

whereby the claim under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles

Act for sum of Rs three Lakhs was dismissed.

2 Heard submissions at the Bar.

3 Facts are:-

Mrs Sneha Pradeep Vaikar, aged 19 years, married

daughter of the claimants was travelling by Fiat Car MH-01-P-

2857 with her Husband Pradeep and Krishna Ghule on 04-11-

2000 on Pune Mumbai Road. The Motor Tempo bearing

Registration No. MH-12-R-7493 collided with it. Sneha died as

result of the accident while her Husband Pradeep died and

their Son Krishna were seriously injured. It is case of the

appellants that their daughter was working in Vinay Roadways

and earning sum of Rs. 2500 to 3000/- per Month.

4 The contention on behalf of the appellants is that

claim tribunal held that Insurer gave their address at New

Mumbai. And applicants gave their address in Punekar Chawl,

D. P. wadi, Ghodapdeo, Mumbai while in Application No. 366

of 2003 applicants gave their address in at Navi Mumbai. That

application was entertained and decided by the Tribunal on

merits. On the ground that the address was changed without

signature of the Registrar/Authority, the Tribunal refused to

entertain the claim under the appeal and declined to exercise

the jurisdiction vested in it to decide the claim application on

merits and in accordance with law.

5 We need to refer Section 163A of the M.V. Act. It

reads thus :-

Special provisions as to payment of compensation on

structured formula basis

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or in any

other law for the time being in force or instrument having the

force of law, the owner of the motor vehicle of the authorised

insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent

disablement due to accident arising out of the use of motor

vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to

the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, "permanent

disability" shall have the same meaning and extent as in the

Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923.

(2) In any claim for compensation under sub-section (I) the

claimant shall not be required to plead or establish that the

death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim

has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or

default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of

other person.

(3)The Central Government may, keeping in view the cost

of living by notification in the Official Gazette, from

time to time amend the Second Schedule.

6 Reading the provision as it is, any legal heir is

entitled to claim compensation awardable under the Act. Prima

facie, it cannot be said that the parents of the victim daughter,

though she was married, were not her legal heirs, particularly

when her husband was no more living. The question needs full

consideration on the basis of evidence led by the parties in the

claim application. The Motor Vehicle Act is a special statute

with social welfare objectives. The jurisdiction of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal having regard to the terminologies

used in the Act must be held to be wider than the civil court. A

claimant has a wide option. Residence of the claimant also

determines jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Averments in the claim

did mention that the applicants were residing at the specified

address in Mumbai. Owner and insurers were also shown as

resident of Mumbai and having their addresses in Mumbai as

mentioned in the cause title of the Claim application. The

accident in question had occurred as a result of the use of the

Motor vehicles. That being so, learned Member clearly erred in

law in refusing to entertain and decide the accident claim

application on merits. The companion accident claim

application no. 366 of 2003 was in respect of the same

accident. It was heard and decided on merits by learned

Member of the Tribunal.

7 The present Accident claim application No. 367

of 2003 is also required to be decided on its own merits and

according to law. Hence following order is passed:

ORDER

Impugned judgment and order is set aside.

Learned Member of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Mumbai, shall entertain and decide the application on its own

merits and in accordance with law. The parties to appear

before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on 28th October

2013 at 11 a.m. and the Tribunal shall after giving opportunity

of hearing to the parties to lead additional evidence if any,

decide the Claim application as early as possible preferably

within six Months from the date of receipt of the writ from this

Court.

(A.P. BHANGALE, J.)

Print Page